The True Purpose of Capitalism

Who said I'm better off? What I said is that the system is always improving. Before 1929, capitalism was much less controlled. Then we learned to control. Now we have more socialism. Slowly, it's evolving into something else.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

WRONG! With infinite resourses we'd have robots doing all the scut work.

Infinite resourses aside, yours is the typical argument against capitalism. I first heard it in brave new world. You had alphas, betas, etc. The alphas were breed to be the movers and shakers and were given high intellegence. The lower castes were given lower abilities and intellegence in keeping with their position in society.

Since we are not in a position to predetermine the intellegence and abilities of the population, capitalism allows each to rise to the appropriate level based on their abilities and drive. Everyone is not the same, economic systems that ignore that fact simply do not work.

I also reject the idea that there is anything wrong with mowing lawns or cleaning toilets. I've had to do both in my day as I worked my way through college. I worked at 7-11, grocery stores, mowed lawns, washed dishes, worked in a factory, worked for the government, whatever I had to do. I now make near your imagined 200k. Who will do the scut work in the perfect capitalist society? Young people on their way up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gas in the US is subsidized? I don't think so. I think the high prices in Europe are due to higher taxes.

Absurd. Anyone can get a student loan in the US.

This is always the case. No matter what the economic system, a price must be paid for everything. There is no free lunch.

Sure, but you are thinking in terms of a zero sum game. This is not the case. Increases in productivity allow more and more of us to be winners.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, I take the view that socialism is the moral imperative of capitalism, in that capitalism in and of itself is directly analagous to "survival of the fittest". People being creatures of varying morals and such however, we implement "laws" that ensure "fair play" in the economic system. IMO, this is the socialist element.

Negative. Actually it's perfect, though some would argue otherwise. IMO, the arguments I've heard to the contrary are complete fantasy from idealism.

Boiled down to it's core, scarcity basically means: "It takes time, space and effort to allocate goods". Imagine a magical bag of infinite wheat. There would still be a maximal rate at which you could garner wheat from the hole in the top of the bag. Even if you make more holes, you still have a maximal rate. So there is a maximal rate at which the resource can be supplied to those who demand it. This is the essence of scarcity. Goods are not infinite, even if there is an infinite supply. Rewording: There exists a rate at which demand can be supplied, thus: All goods are effectively finite.

I would say it can be a misleading concept though, if you think of it to mean "there's not enough to go around". That's not what it means at all, as I explained above.

Well tiassa and I had a HUGE run in about this topic some time ago in which he argued some tripe about how it was perception or something, or lemme try to remember... uhm... some BS about how fluffy everything should be but it isn't. I don't remember his argument, but it was obviously retarded and he simply refused to accept the simplicity of "stuff takes time" in favor of "everyone should be able to get what they want" or some crap. Bah. It pisses me off just thinking about it, so I'm stopping. I can point you to the thread if you like.

 

Links, links for the Proletariate!

...

United Nations policy monitoring group article "Bubble Capitalism " The price of profits, with "corporate greed and scandal for all."

...

Abbreviated highlights of the struggle of western plutocracy versus it's constituency (essay here )

 

Obviously, you underestimate infinity.

A system in which everyone was making the same amount of money would implode quickly, as those who produced less yet were making as much as the massive producers would suck the system dry in no time. Hmm. Soviet Union? Prolly not quite.

That's a stretch. Capitalism isn't really a choice. It's the baseline. You can doll it up however you like, but capitalism underlies any facade you may construct. Further, under a capitalist system, your scenario isn't really plausible. Under what conditions do you suppose everyone could make the same amount of money? Certainly if there were infinite resources everyone wouldn't need money, because they could take and take and take as much as they wanted and there'd still be an infinity more left for them to take. Unfortunately, reality tends to limit our resources. There are only so many square miles on the surface of the planet, etc.

Oh, and if those who produce more are not rewarded in proportionally for doing so, they tend not to do so and as such, the overall economy (the distribution of resources) grinds to a halt and everyone suffers a lack of resources.

If you had to work twice as hard for four times the money you're currently making, would you? Hmmm. Even if you say no, someone will... and more goods will be available for it.

Hmmm.. now that I think about it, you sort of defeated your own argument from the get-go. Yessir. You asked a realistic question from an implausible scenario, wherein the constrast of the two actually reverses your conclusion "therefore it's not for everyone". Bah, I gotta git.

So you're quite debunked. What else you got?

 

There's a riddle there, but it might take forever to find...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Don't overstimate them! It might take just a long time!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It takes time, space and effort to allocate information too, did you know? What is the current average time, space and effort to allocate information? What about 20 years ago?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You defined a capitalist society as one where people can naturally rise up to their ability levels to make an honest living.

However, there are older people in those professions who are easily capable of other talents had they been given the proper chance and motivation. Is this perfect capitalism? Yes, because the worker in his mid-40s doing menial jobs and tasks is deluded into thinking he has risen to his saturated level of capability, when he actually isn't. Some people need social stimuli to discover their talents, and certainly one where competition discourages them from doing it. Capitalism discourages this because it is a system based on competition, fear, and mutual distrust.

Everybody is capable and therefore should do 'scut work'.

 

Hmmm... good point.

 

This assumes that popularity of products implies superior fitness... which it does not appear to.

Capitalism is a failure. It just takes longer to see that than with Communism, which failed very quickly.

 

What is an honest living? Western civilization is dependent on exploitation of the third world.

 

So you don't think the third world is at all dependent on the exploitation of western civilization eh?

Idealog.

 

You're comparing capitalism and communism while ignoring the mixed economies. Did you see this post?

How many of those top ten countries have partially socialist economies, and how many are pure capitalist?

Wikipedia: While most people[citation needed] regard the Western developed countries as capitalist[2], some of these economies may be more strictly called "mixed economies"[3], because they contain state-owned means of production and significant government economic interventionism.

 

we sure made them dependent. A slave is dependent on its master. That doesn't change the fact that he was made slave by a system that his master belongs too.

There is nothing honest about capitalism.

 

My point was just to help clear some things, especially when some people are misled by capitalism. I have nothing against capitalism but there are obviously limitations and uglier sides, which winners are more liably to dress off in self denial.

Bullshit statement

 

Does life have purpose/meaning? I think we would argue long time about it just to conclude that there is no universal sense of life. On the other hand, founding element (economical system) of universally meaningless life should have some sacred purpose. Little contradiction.

Let's go back to origins of capitalism - fencing of pastures in England (one of the "hot" spots). Why would feudal olygarchy decided to fence off land and to super exploit desperate landless, hungry masses? Stupid question. The answer is obvious - to maximize profits. Why feudal olygarchy didn't do it before? Answer is also quite obvious there was no technologies, markets, mindsets, reformation, population surplas, etc. to make such barbarity profitable and/or possible in the past. Interesting fact, after dust of crushed feudalism settled over the Western Europe, 90% of the richest feudal families preserved their fortunes. There was NO new "rag to riches" capitalist class who gave birth to capitalism.

Except little abberations (like USSR and China), one would not make many mistakes by looking on historical processes in context of $/power interests of dominating elites and their chain dogs.

 

According to our dear coolade drinkers its because they are smart. What people fail to realize is that resources are limited and there is a limit to how much education can possibly go around. I mean this "far from reality" guys actually think everybody in America gets financial aid.

Is it still not a form of subsidy. I mean do you think the U.S government has not thought about racking such taxes? Anyway doesn't make much sence that Europeans subsidize agriculture but inflate gas prices.

The biggest assumtion in capitalism is that it is fair by accomodating and categorizing intelligent and stupid people accordingly. Well Mr Capitalism all knowledge is a dimension of survival, survival from changes in the enviroment. These changes are dependent on the enviroment you live in. They is comething called socio-economic cyle, which basicaly means the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor( regardless of intelligence). Of cause the poor can decide to one day secure their place in the system but this is as easy as a third world country surpassing a developed country. Opression aside, unfortunates can decide to get an eduction and get a job then climb up the socio-economic stratosphere but this is subject to changes, and some changes you cannot and will not be prepared for. Because changes come in differenct forms, experiences, and dimensions to each individual it is unfair to conclude that one person is higher in the stratosphere because he or she is smarter. In Africa to get ahead is to be adept at socio-political change, in china its science and tech, in Argentina its more socio-economic, in U.S its pretty much any of these changes. Basicaly your success is more luck and networking than intelligence, remember intelligence itself is an extension of survival, which is dependent on the enviroment. So capitalism or any other form of economics for that matter is not fair and cannot be fair based on I.Q. For exmaple I know an engineer who drives a taxi in New York, of cause he is intelligent in his own rights but it just so happens that his industry at the moment is not accomodating him, and without networking and resources he ends up in the bottom picking. I also know a man with a GED who is a multi...i mean "multi" million dollar real estate agent in Maryland. I know a guy that didn't even finish high school, was making 500k a year, and lost everything to drugs and alchohol. Okay with a good education and a good intention you are liable to be successful, this is the old bed time lullaby parents tell you. Parents also told you that you are special. This is true but there are people who go to good schools, articulate, and ambitious, who amounts to nothing because they fall prey to the vicous socio-economic cycle. But I will always support education because the only thing worst than being poor is being lost.

Sometimes true, much of the wealth in Britain and France is from imperialist rule. In Europe the countries with the most corruption are the ones who never got a shot or made good use of imperialism, Russia, Italy, most eastern countries; not a coincidence.

 

Yes it works but it takes advantage of the stupidity and helplessness of humans. You see an advertisement on TV for something you don't need, something entirely stupid and you decide you want to buy it, all in the name of sustaining the economy and fattening one fat ass CEO in leather chair's bank account. If you take a closer look at all the stuff that spills out of manufacturing plants you will see that its all just bullshit, but you see they have no choice when it comes to competition and the economy. Mercedez benz have been making the same type SL500 for ten years just changing the body style and some other bullshit. Its only in a capitalist enviroment that you see jeans priced and ready to sell at $80. Resources wasted everywhere, people everywhere wake up and dedicate their lives to money, a piece of crapy paper with dead assbags who will role over their graves if they knew just how moraly bankrupt we are. We have failed to recognize the important things like what we really want, what we really want to change the world to, and what we really want to be. Our motivation is channeled at improving bullshit products due to competition instead of looking at bigger pictures and precipitating true emotional and intellectual advancement. I like capitalism but I hate extreme capitalism.

G. Carlin
Think its not true, just watch QVC

G. Carlin